Indict Hillary Clinton

By Wouldlike Change
Global Research, June 01, 2016
Change.org
Region: USA
Theme: Law and Justice
In-depth Report: U.S. Elections

Hillary-RamboHillary Clinton should be immediately indicted for:

1. Obstruction of justice. If any average citizen lied to investigative officials, failed to turn over evidence, provided only selective evidence, they would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If any average military personnel with even the lightest of Security Clearance was in breach as Clinton clearly was, they would be prosecuted. Why are our officials not held accountable for their actions?

2. Spoliation of evidence. If any average citizen wiped the hard drive after requests from authorities to turn it over, they would be prosecuted. Why are our officials not held accountable for their actions?

3. Violaton of Federal Records Act (perhaps willful). Our officials agree to be accountable when they hold office. They also agree to comply with the Federal Records Act. Why are our officials not held accountable for their actions?

4. Violation of Espionage Act (perhaps willful). Our officials with Security Clearances agree to hold sensitive information vital to our country’s security with strict restrictions. Ignoring these restrictions should be prosecuted in full, and not doing so is treason against every American. Why are our officials not held accountable for their actions?

The Clinton Foundation ties to weapons deals should also be thoroughly investigated.

To sign petition click https://www.change.org/p/doj-indict-hillary-clinton

Hillary Clinton: “If I’m President, We Will Attack Iran… We would be Able to Totally Obliterate Them.”

 

 

 

In-depth Report: IRAN: THE NEXT WAR

 

Endless wars are certain no matter who succeeds Obama. Clinton’s finger on the nuclear trigger should terrify everyone. ~ Oliver Stone filmmaker

 

By Stephen Lederman

Note: This piece which is of extreme relevance to the US election campaign was originally published in July 2015.

On July 3, 2015, presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton addressed a hand-picked audience at a Dartmouth College campaign event. She lied calling Iran an “existential threat to Israel… I hope we are able to get a deal next week that puts a lid on (its) nuclear weapons program.”

Even if we do get such a deal, we will still have major problems from Iran. They are the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism.

They use proxies like Hezbollah to sow discord and create insurgencies to destabilize governments. They are taking more and more control of a number of nations in the region and they pose an existential threat to Israel.

We…have to turn our attention to working with our partners to try to reign in and prevent this continuing Iranian aggressiveness.

Fact: US and Israeli intelligence both say Iran’s nuclear program has no military component. No evidence whatever suggests Tehran wants one. Plenty indicates otherwise.

As a 2008 presidential aspirant, she addressed AIPAC’s annual convention saying:

The United States stands with Israel now and forever. We have shared interests….shared ideals….common values. I have a bedrock commitment to Israel’s security.

(O)ur two nations are fighting a shared threat” against Islamic extremism. I strongly support Israel’s right to self-defense (and) believe America should aid in that defense.

I am committed to making sure that Israel maintains a military edge to meet increasing threats. I am deeply concerned about the growing threat in Gaza (and) Hamas’ campaign of terror.

No such campaign exists. The only threats Israel faces are ones it invents.

Clinton repeated tired old lies saying Hamas’ charter “calls for the destruction of Israel. Iran threatens to destroy Israel.”

“I support calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard what it is: a terrorist organization. It is imperative that we get both tough and smart about dealing with Iran before it is too late.”

She backs “massive retaliation” if Iran attacks Israel, saying at the time:

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

She endorses using cluster bombs, toxic agents and nuclear weapons in US war theaters. She calls them deterrents that “keep the peace.” She was one of only six Democrat senators opposed to blocking deployment of untested missile defense systems – first-strike weapons entirely for offense.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 


SYRIA – MATERIAL EVIDENCE

SYRIA_CIVILWAR

Syria

The civil war in Syria is a conflict that the country cannot solve since 2011. A conflict that nearly caused a military intervention of the world community. Who “benefits” from this war? What is happening in Syria now? The events in Syria are another episode of the Arab Spring; but here it has turned the cities into ruins with a horrific number of victims and divided the society different, opposing groups. By visiting the exhibition, where each photo is a frozen reality of human misery, we can learn to understand and even experience the horror of the civil war in Syria.

DeLay: FBI ‘Ready to Indict’ Hillary

 

DeLay: FBI ‘Ready to Indict’ Hillary

The FBI is ready to indict Hillary Clinton and if its recommendation isn’t followed by the U.S. attorney general, the agency’s investigators plan

to blow the whistle and go public with their findings, former U.S. House Majority leader Tom DeLay tells Newsmax TV.

“I have friends that are in the FBI and they tell me they’re ready to indict,” DeLay said Monday on “The Steve Malzberg Show.”

“They’re ready to recommend an indictment and they also say that if the attorney general does not indict, they’re going public.”

Clinton is under FBI investigation for her use of a private server to conduct confidential government business while she was secretary of state. But some Republicans fear any FBI recommendation that hurts Clinton will be squashed by the Obama administration [ old news ]

Special: IRS Insider Confesses . . .

DeLay, a Texas Republican and Washington Times radio host, said:

“One way or another either she’s going to be indicted and that process begins, or we try her in the public eye with her campaign. One way or another she’s going to have to face these charges.”

Last week, Clinton’s press secretary Brian Fallon accused intelligence Inspector General Charles McCullough of colluding with Republicans to damage Clinton’s campaign for president.

The charge came after a report that McCullough sent a letter to two GOP lawmakers that some of Clinton’s emails sent from her private server when she was secretary of state should have been marked with classifications even higher than “top secret.”

© 2016 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

 

Posted by Ainhoa Aristizabal –  Unruly Hearts Chief Editor

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.

 

 

 

 

Western ‘Nation-building’: John Kerry Says If Ceasefire Fails He May Partition Syria

 

By Mark Nicholas

That’s Western ‘nation-building’ and international law for you

John Kerry is an incredible motivator! He has just told Syrian jihadi-controlled rebellion that all it has to do is sabotage the upcoming ceasefire he has agreed to with Moscow and he will reward them with a mini-state carved out from Syria. What better incentive to abide by the deal and cease hostilities could he possibly give them?

John Kerry, the US secretary of state, has said he will move towards a plan B that could involve a partition of Syria if a planned ceasefire due to start in the next few days does not materialize, or if a genuine shift to a transitional government does not take place in the coming months.

Oh yes, you may have thought that “partition” is a bad word, but that’s only true when the Russians do it. When Americans partition a foreign country (Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Serbia, Sudan) that is actually a good thing.

Which presents us with a problem since Kerry is apparently willing to invite Putin to help with the partition:

Kerry suggested partition could form part of an eventual solution, saying “this can get a lot uglier and Russia has to be sitting there evaluating that too. It may be too late to keep it as a whole Syria if it is much longer”.

It is the first time Kerry has spoken of partition, although some believe Putin would be content to see this happen.

This creates a moral problem for us because while a unilateral partition of Syria by the virtuous US would be a good thing, a joint US-Russian partition would be tainted by the virtue of having evil Russian paws over it.

Hopefully the Russian nation-breaking dictator will decline the offer of the nation-building Obama Administration official and avert the possibility of American-Russian collusion in breaking up a sovereign third country.

PS. Wasn’t it just a short few weeks ago that the West was accusing Moscow of plotting partition of Syria? How times change.

Syrian Army Defeats ISIS Forces in Northern Aleppo Province, Breaks Several-Year-Long Siege of Nubl and Al-Zahra Towns

By Fars News Agency
Global Research, February 04, 2016
FARS News 3 February 2016
Region: Middle East & North Africa
Theme: 9/11 & ‘War on Terrorism’, US NATO War Agenda
In-depth Report: SYRIA: NATO’S NEXT WA

The Syrian army broke the terrorists’ four-year-long siege of the Shiite-populated towns of Nubl and Al-Zahra in Northern Aleppo province a few minutes ago.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). Unruly Hearts will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.

The siege of the strategic towns was removed after four years in an army offensive from the Eastern side of the two towns, while other units of the Syrian army also managed to purge terrorists from 80 percent of the village of Ma’arasa al-Khan.

Reports from Syria said on Wednesday evening that the Shiite residents of Seyede Zeinab region in Damascus, who have been under the terrorists’ continued missile and rocket attacks in the last several years, have poured to the streets to celebrate the army’s groundbreaking victory in Nubl and Al-Zahra. The last rocket attack on Seyede Zeinab region claimed tens of civilian lives only last week.

In addition to the significant advances of the Syrian government forces in the Eastern territories of Aleppo, the Syrian army and its allies were engaged in a heavy battle in the Northern and Northwestern parts of the province to remove the militants’ siege on the two towns.

Also today, the Syrian Army and popular forces, in a rapid joint offensive, surprised the ISIL terrorists and drove them back from their strongholds near two small towns in the Eastern countryside of Aleppo city.

The Syrian army and the National Defense Forces (NDF) continued to advance against the ISIL and won back the small town of As Sin in the Western part of the newly-liberated al-Maksour and the village of al-Uweinat.

Tens of the ISIL combatants were killed or wounded in the pro-government forces’ assault and their military hardware and vehicles were damaged.

Also today, A senior commander of the Fath al-Halab (Conquest of Aleppo) terrorists group fled the battle against the Syrian army in Northern Aleppo and took shelter in Turkey.

“Commander of Fath all-Halab’s operations room Major Yasser Abdel Rahim has escaped to Turkey,” both sides of the war confirmed on Wednesday.

Reports from Aleppo province said earlier today that militant groups are evacuating all villages and areas near the towns of Nubl and al-Zahra as the Syrian army, Hezbollah and popular forces continue to gain ground in nearby areas.

Field sources said the Syrian army and its allies’ victories in the last 72 hours have forced the terrorist groups, including Nouriddeen al-Zinki movement (al-Nusra affiliated) to withdraw from their positions near the towns of Nubl and al-Zahra to evade more casualties.

Another report said on Tuesday that hundreds of Takfiri terrorists were trying to cross the border to Turkey after losing vast grounds and dozens of their friends in the Syrian army’s massive operations in Northern Aleppo province.

The terrorists have sustained heavy losses as the Syrian army is hunting them down in the Northern part of Aleppo province.

Tens of terrorists have been killed and dozens more have been injured in heavy clashes with the Syrian troops in Northern Aleppo in the past three days as the army conducted massive assaults to win back more villages and towns in the region.

Reports said on Tuesday large groups of militants were fleeing their strongholds in different areas of Northern Aleppo province as the Syrian army announced that it has cut off one of the main supply routes of the militants in the Southern part of Ratyan and al-Zahra in Northwest of the province and laid siege on terrorists in one town and several villages.

The original source of this article is FARS News
Copyright © Fars News Agency, FARS News, 2016

Why Obama’s assurance of ‘no boots on the ground’ isn’t so reassuring

PHAFGHAN13_10_0_163384204

A U.S. Marine on patrol. (Rebecca Sell/For The Washington Post)

Rosa Brooks, a law professor at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, was an Obama administration appointee at the Defense Department from 2009 to 2011. She is married to an Army Special Forces officer.

Each time I hear President Obama assure us that there will be “no boots on the ground” in Iraq or Syria, I think of my husband’s Army boots, lying in a heap in the corner of the downstairs study. They’re covered in fine dust from his latest Middle East deployment, one that came nail-bitingly close to being extended by an unplanned stint in Iraq.

In the end, he wasn’t sent back to Iraq. He came home in July, though a last-minute change in assignments left most of his civilian clothes stranded in some Army transport netherworld. Deprived of his sneakers and sandals, he wore his Army boots pretty much everywhere this summer, even on playground outings with the kids. Watching grass stains from the local park gradually displace nine months of Kuwaiti dust gave me more happiness than I can say.

Even so, I can’t help feeling queasy every time I hear the president pledge that there will be “no boots on the ground” in America’s newest war. I wonder what that pledge really means — and just why we’re supposed to find it reassuring. It’s a pledge that seems to have everything to do with politics and little to do with the imperatives of strategy or security.

Here’s what “no boots on the ground” apparently doesn’t mean: It doesn’t mean that no U.S. troops will be sent to Iraq or Syria. Reportedly there are already 1,600 U.S. military personnel in Iraq. True, they’re present in an “advisory” role, not in a combat role — but surely one lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan is that combat has a habit of finding its way to noncombat personnel. Enemy snipers and IEDs don’t much care about a soldier’s mission or occupational specialty, and you can bet that fighters of the self-proclaimed Islamic State would be content with the heads of a few American advisers.

It’s also hard to know what publicly reported troop numbers really mean. When the Pentagon issues a Boots on the Ground report (known colloquially as a “BOG report”), it often excludes military personnel on “temporary duty” in combat areas, even though temporary duty may mean an assignment spanning five or six months. Similarly, Special Operations personnel assigned to work under CIA auspices are often left out of the BOG numbers. This makes it hard to know just who’s being counted when officials say there are 1,600 military personnel in Iraq.

“No boots on the ground” also ignores the many nonmilitary American boots (and shoes and sandals) present in Iraq and Syria. Our Baghdad embassy personnel presumably wear some kind of footwear, as do thousands more civilians working as U.S. government contractors in Iraq. In both Iraq and Syria, scores of American civilians also work for nongovernmental organizations and humanitarian aid groups.

The Pentagon keeps careful count of dead and wounded U.S. troops, but the government doesn’t systematically track dead or injured civilians or contractors (many of whom, of course, are U.S. military veterans). Though few Americans know it, there were often more contractors working for the U.S. government on the ground than there were U.S. troops at the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and some estimates suggest that there were as many U.S.-employed contractors who died in those conflicts as there were U.S. troops killed.

Cynics might even suspect that this heavy reliance on contractors was part of an effort to keep those BOG numbers down while outsourcing military risk. After all, no one likes high BOG numbers — the very acronym is suggestive of that most dreaded military outcome, the “quagmire.”

If “no boots on the ground” means playing games with numbers and offloading military risk onto U.S. government civilians and contractors, we should take little solace in presidential reassurances.

And we should feel even less comfort if “no boots on the ground” ends up putting vulnerable local civilians at risk. Remember Kosovo? President Bill Clinton’s refusal in 1999 to put U.S. troops on the ground forced us to rely solely on airstrikes to prevent Serbian ethnic cleansing. To further minimize any risk to U.S. military personnel, we mainly flew sorties at a safe 15,000 feet above the ground. This worked out well for us: Aside from two Americans killed in a helicopter accident in Albania, there were no U.S. fatalities in the 78-day air campaign. It worked out less well for some of the civilians we were trying to protect; in several cases, for instance, NATO pilots mistook convoys of refugees for troop transports, causing scores of civilian deaths.

The primary goal of the current U.S. airstrikes in Syria and Iraq isn’t civilian protection, but Obama has suggested that this is at least a secondary motivation. In his speech this past week to the U.N. General Assembly, for instance, he asserted that the Islamic State “has terrorized all who they come across in Iraq and Syria. Mothers, sisters and daughters have been subjected to rape as a weapon of war. Innocent children have been gunned down. . . . Religious minorities have been starved to death. In the most horrific crimes imaginable, innocent human beings have been beheaded. . . . The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force. So the United States of America will work with a broad coalition to dismantle this network of death.”

It’s hard to argue with the importance of dismantling a “network of death,” but no matter how careful we are, U.S. airstrikes in Syria and Iraq will also end up killing some innocent civilians. Without eyes and ears on the ground, we’re more likely to make tragic targeting mistakes. We have to hope we’ll do more good than harm, but it’s hard to feel confident of that.

Numerous respected military and defense leaders — from Army Gen. Martin Dempsey , current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to retired defense secretary Robert Gates — have argued in recent weeks that ground troops will probably be required if our strategy is to be effective. So far, events seem to be proving them right: In Iraq, seven weeks of airstrikes have done little to push Islamic State fighters out of the territories they control, despite close U.S. coordination with Iraqi army units. In Syria, we have no similar local force with which to coordinate, creating a risk that U.S. airstrikes will increase the chaos without fundamentally reducing the threat to local civilians — or, in the longer term, to the United States.And that’s most worrisome of all — the possibility that our insistence on “no boots on the ground” also offloads present risks onto the future. Relying on airstrikes alone may merely prolong a bloody and inconclusive conflict, or strengthen other actors who are just as brutal as Islamic State fighters, from the regime of Bashar al-Assad to the al-Qaeda-linked rebels of Jabhat al-Nusra.Insisting that we’ll never commit U.S. troops to this fight plays right into every jihadist narrative, reinforcing America’s image as an arrogant but cowardly nation — happy to drop bombs from a distance but unwilling to risk the lives of our troops. Each time we reinforce that narrative, we give jihadist recruiting another big boost.

 

For a decade, we’ve relied on drone strikes as a top counterterrorism tool in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, but a few thousand dead terrorism suspects later, it’s far from clear that we’ve made ourselves safer. If anything, the global jihadist movement appears to have gained strength. As a former Defense Intelligence Agency director, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, recently noted: “In 2004, there were 21 total Islamic terrorist groups spread out in 18 countries. Today, there are 41 Islamic terrorist groups spread out in 24 countries.” Ultimately, our efforts to destroy the Islamic State from afar may similarly spark the creation of even more jihadist groups.

“I will not commit you . . . to fighting another ground war in Iraq,” Obama told troops at Central Command headquarters this month. I appreciate his desire to do right by America’s military personnel: My husband’s boots, like those of so many other members of the armed forces, have already gathered too much dust in too many dangerous places, over too many years. Right now, I want those boots to stay exactly where they are: here, at home.

But I don’t want to trade the safety of U.S. troops today for the safety of our children tomorrow. If Obama’s promise of “no boots on the ground” means we’ll be fighting a war of half-measures — a war that won’t achieve our objectives and that may increase the long-term threat — I’m not sure, in the end, that it’s a promise I want him to keep.